The Turbulent Life of a Merchant in the Revolutionary Era
The paper below, presented through the perspective of a fictional character, explores the significant issues and transformations that occurred in the imperial relationship between Great Britain and its North American colonies in the late 1700s. By referencing historical events and enactments, the narrative follows Gerald Gardner, a merchant from Boston, as he strives to piece together these events and offer his own interpretation of the American Revolution from the standpoint of those in his profession.
While the depicted sentiments reflect the thoughts and attitudes of an individual, it is important to note that not all members of the merchant class shared the same views throughout history. The characters and their opinions in this text are fictional, but the historical events, laws, and practices mentioned are based on reality. Gerald Gardner started his career in the trade sector around 1750 and benefited from favorable circumstances that allowed his business to thrive. His responsibilities included selling and exporting goods to foreign markets, as well as purchasing and importing merchandise to be sold in the colonies.
Gardner did not pay much attention to British laws that required certain products of the colonies, such as tobacco, rice, and indigo, to be exported only to England or another English colony, and for the colonies to purchase European manufactured goods only through England (Morgan, 10). However, this does not mean that he did not engage in trade with England, as it was known for having the world’s most advanced industry and the best prices. Gardner believed that the Navigation law aimed to promote the economic welfare of the empire in general and the mother country in particular (Morgan, 10).
The individual in question was solely concerned with their own welfare and had no interest or motivation in the empire’s gains. Consequently, they frequently purchased and imported high-quality and valuable textiles from Holland and France, which was prohibited by English law, with the aim of making considerable profits. To accomplish this, the individual bribed customs officers to disregard these shipments. These customs officers were well aware of the lenient enforcement of the Navigation Act and willingly participated in these illegal transactions, confident that they would not face any consequences or be reported by their superiors (Morgan, 11).
Gerald Garner achieved significant success in the business industry by importing raw materials from England and purchasing manufactured goods from them. Additionally, he acquired French and Dutch textiles illegally by directly buying them from France and Holland instead of going through England. This allowed him to avoid the higher prices charged by England as a middleman. Garner’s life was prosperous, as he had accumulated significant personal wealth and established trading networks across Europe.
However, the luxurious way of life he had become accustomed to would soon experience significant transformations. These changes occurred in 1763, when Britain initiated reforms to address its declining imperial administration. The outdated British imperial system was already running at a substantial financial loss compared to its revenue, and now faced an additional economic challenge—funding the territories acquired during the Seven Years’ War. The London government was in dire need of funds, given the scale and extent of its new holdings in North America and the sizable debt incurred from financing a seven-year war.
To address the revenue issue, the Privy Council Of England initiated reforms to its customs service on October 4, 1763. Recognizing that the revenue from America was inadequate and not proportionate to the growth in commerce, the Council implemented measures to ensure compliance with the Navigation laws (Greene, 14).
Britain appointed numerous new officers, issued stringent instructions and regulations to both new and existing officers, and implemented measures of accountability within the enforcement system. These officers were now obligated to report any form of misconduct, ranging from illegal trade to instances of bribery involving their colleagues. Additionally, the reform mandated officers to provide accurate reports on the imports, exports, revenue status, and illicit trade with other European nations in their respective districts (Greene, 15).
The customs service was reformed to ensure that all financial transactions would be accounted for and to provide the necessary manpower for that task. Following this, in 1764, the Sugar Act was passed, which led to the establishment of arbitrary vice-admiralty courts responsible for enforcing the law (Greene, 24). While these trade policy reforms may not have had a significant impact on most colonists, they brought about major changes for merchants like Gerald Gardner. In a diary entry from December 1763, Gardner reflects on how the customs reforms have greatly affected his business. The new regulations have resulted in unlawful searches and seizures of ships and cargo. British authorities confiscated the assets and sold them, with the proceeds being divided between the English treasury, the governor of the colony, and the prosecuting officers. These officers are quick to accuse violators knowing that they are protected by British law.
The Sugar Act provisions safeguard officers from lawsuits if they have probable cause for seizing a vessel. The newly established vice-admiralty courts, controlled by British officials, are likely to accept this probable cause for the benefit of the empire (Morgan, 38). Enacted in 1763, the law requires the burden of proof to lie with the owner or claimant of the ship or goods, not the individuals who seized them (Greene, 24). British customs officials have repeatedly exploited this system. They will adhere to lenient policies for a while and then suddenly change regulations, catching unaware contemporaries off guard. Some merchants have lost their ships and cargo through this tactic. Others who proved their innocence still had to pay exorbitant legal and court fees that exceeded the value of their ships (Morgan, 38-39). Fearing harsh penalties, I reformed my own business practices.
Gerald Gardner, a merchant, expresses his frustration with the current state of business. He used to directly buy textiles from the French and Dutch, but now he has to buy them from the British at a higher price. Even his personal belongings are considered cargo, which results in higher customs duties. This has led to decreased profit margins and increased expenses. However, Gardner continues to trade with his new business connections in Britain. He laments that recent conditions have caused him and his contemporaries to fail while benefiting the British empire financially. The colonists in America were also affected by legislation passed by Parliament, such as the Stamp Act of 1765, the Townshend duties, and the Tea Act of 1773. These acts angered the colonists and led them to resist Parliament’s right to tax. The Stamp Act imposed a tax on printed documents, and the Townshend duties imposed taxes on various goods including glass, lead, paper, paints, and tea (Morgan, 34).
The colonial merchants responded by agreeing not to import British goods until the taxes had been repealed (Morgan, 35). The merchants took this action because the colonists were not buying goods with high taxes imposed on them. As a result of the oppressive taxes from Parliament, domestic goods became more popular. People in the colonies expressed their preference for homemade products and their dislike for foreign luxuries. Newspapers reported positive advancements in American manufacturing (Morgan, 35).
The situation was difficult for merchants like Gerald Gardner. Britain had put them in a tough position. According to British law, merchants were obligated to buy their supplies from Britain. However, the British government also imposed high taxes on these goods, discouraging colonial consumers from buying them. Basically, the British government forced merchants to buy from them while also alienating their customer base through unfair taxation. The Tea Act of 1773 exacerbated the situation further. Prior to this act, the East India Company was not allowed to sell their tea directly to retail merchants.
The tea, originally intended for American wholesale merchants, was instead sold by the company to English wholesale merchants who would then sell it to an American wholesale merchant. However, the Tea Act allowed the East India Company to bypass these middlemen and sell directly to retail merchants, causing the American and English wholesale merchants to lose out on potential profits (Morgan, 58). Furthermore, the merchants faced another blow with the establishment of non-importation agreements at the First Continental Congress. The newly formed Colonial Association prohibited the importation of British goods and also banned their exportation after September 10th, 1775. This had a devastating impact on Gerald Gardner’s business prospects when independence from Great Britain was eventually declared in the summer of 1776. Reflecting on these turbulent times, Gardner wrote in a journal entry from around 1777 that the Stamp Act and the Townshend Duties had significantly reduced sales due to the high duties imposed on goods.
In response to Parliament’s taxation, we merchants implemented our own non-importation agreement. However, the reduction in imports resulted in an increase in domestically produced goods. Consequently, my business suffered a significant decline. The establishment of the East Indian Company as a monopoly through the Tea Act completely cut me off from the tea trade. While this act claims to benefit the colonies by offering lower-priced tea, I am concerned that once all other merchants are forced out, the Company will increase both the price and tax on tea since they will have a monopoly on its supply (Morgan, 59).
The First Continental Congress dealt my business the final blow. Their declarations, specifically the non-exportation and non-importation agreements, brought an end to my career as a merchant in the colonies. As per British law, I was required to purchase manufactures exclusively from them. However, the First Continental Congress prohibited the import of these goods, leaving me with no customers to sell to. Consequently, I made the decision to relocate to Nova Scotia. While I held Britain accountable for their unjust taxation without representation, which led to the colonies declaring independence, I did not desire nor could I support the arrival of independence.
As merchants, the end of trade was significant for us. Our survival relied on conducting business with British citizens. However, numerous trading partners in Britain showed reluctance to engage with rebellious colonies. Some fellow merchants, who were fortunate enough to still be in business, faced immense challenges in finding alternative trade routes due to the presence of British naval forces in North America (Morgan, 98). Additionally, my disapproval extends to Thomas Jefferson and his Declaration of Independence.
The claim made by Thomas Jefferson that the government should protect “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” contradicts what actually happened to merchants. Thomas Jefferson himself stated that the tranquility, happiness, and security of mankind depend on justice and respecting the rights of others. However, the Declaration of Independence did not respect my rights and hindered my pursuit of happiness. When America severed its ties with Great Britain, it abruptly ended the business that was essential for my happiness. As a result, I had to stay in Nova Scotia for the rest of my years since there was no business opportunity for an import merchant like myself. The colonies, influenced by non-importation agreements from previous years, developed a strong desire for self-sufficiency. They realized the importance of conserving resources and not spending money on things that they could produce themselves. However, there was also a need for national trade regulation, which was lacking in the Articles of Confederation.
Diverse tariffs across states can have varying effects on domestic manufacturing. While some states may benefit from increased production due to higher tariffs, others may suffer due to potential customers being deterred by high tariffs. Additionally, the merchant, being experienced, understood the risks associated with using paper money. The use of paper currency was seen as a violation of contractual integrity. In the past, Gardner had encountered difficulties with paper currency in his trade ventures. He had been paid back in currency that was worth significantly less than its original value at the time of the deal, resulting in financial losses (Morgan, 99).
Furthermore, the varying paper money regulations among the newly formed states hindered intrastate trade. For instance, Rhode Island mandated the use of paper money, which eventually lost its value and became worth only seven or eight cents per dollar. On the other hand, Massachusetts prohibited the use of paper currency. As a result, trade between these two states became nearly impossible. To ensure economic prosperity for the country, it was necessary to establish a centralized government that could regulate and implement national trade policies.
As the North American colonies progressed towards independence from Great Britain, the prosperity of the merchant class as a whole declined. Initially, merchants freely traded with whomever they wished, disregarding the lenient enforcement of the Navigation Acts. However, due to customs reforms and the implementation of the Sugar Act, merchants were compelled to adhere to strict regulations and pay additional duties. Parliament’s taxation of the colonies prompted colonists to establish non-importation agreements, ultimately causing business to grind to a halt for numerous merchants.
Independence led to the severing of trade connections between colonial merchants and businessmen in Britain. Despite facing scrutiny, many merchants found it in their own best interest to remain loyal to the king. This was because losing business with British counterparts would decrease their income and hamper their ability to accumulate property, thus hindering their pursuit of happiness. Therefore, in an ironic twist, the merchants of that time had to remain loyal to the king in order to preserve the rights of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence.
Works Cited Greene, Jack P. Colonies to Nation, 1763-1789: A Documentary History of the American Revolution. Vol. 2. New York: Norton, 1975. Print. Jayne, Allen. Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy, and Theology. Lexington: University of Kentucky, 1998. Print. McDonald, Forrest. Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution. Lawrence, Kan. : University of Kansas, 1985. Print. Morgan, Edmund Sears. The Birth of the Republic: 1763-89. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1992. Print.
